A dozen notes and quotes #1
July 4th 2007 01:24
Freedom as absence of domination:
"Just because we can screw you, doesn't mean we will.
Let's give WorkChoices a go!"
-- The Age, 23/06/07, page 8.
People never essentially change -- or, at any rate, that's how we perceive them -- we actively look for similarities, and ignore the differences -- whatever John Smith had, he still has, no better, no worse -- and whatever you yourself had at 15, remains yours at 50, no better, no worse...
Dance like nobody's watching...
So Kubrick was infamous for his multiple takes. And I'm speculating here, but perhaps the reasons included: (a) perfectionism -- "That ashtray needs to be adjusted; let's re-shoot the scene"; and (b) exploration -- the sort of directing where you don't arrive on the set with preconceptions, and you don't dictate to the actors, but you maintain maximum openness to serendipity; and you push in different directions and see what happens.
Well, Nicole Kidman reports this additional reason: that repetition breaks down actors' self-consciousness. And I think anyone who's sat in an acting class or watched a rehearsal (or studied Meisner) will see how this could work.
-- And presumably the same goes for any other art... So in the case of writing, the first words you write are going to be mired in self-consciousness. But then you edit, and edit again, and draft and redraft, and suddenly you're solo dancing...
At O Week, the philosophy stall was next to Hillsong. And what a contrast. The former studious: the latter blaring music. The former purporting to be rational: the latter blatantly appealing to emotion. And note the difference in recruitment technique. One admitting it caters to a niche market. The other billing itself as "a social club; we organize barbecues and we hold beach parties once a week".
Nary a crucifix to be seen -- on either stall...
We're always locating ourselves in relation to things.
And we're always located, whether we want to be or not.
The gaze of the future collapses differences.
Physicalism is highly question-begging. The only things that exist are physical -- sure! But what counts as physical?
Mightn't you as well say, the only things that exist are the things that exist?
It's very hard to speak of an appropriate standard for revenge. For one thing, the way that damage is assessed, and the associated rituals of expiation, are culturally variant. But it should also be noticed that revenge is about the extra; it's in the nature of it to push boundaries. And if anything could be decided as appropriate (say we went to the polls and took a head count) -- well, we'd want to transcend the standard -- we're hard-wired to overpunish.
... just as it's very hard to decide on an appropriate standard for forgiveness...
Anything can also be presented as a tragedy -- or as comedy.
You can agree or disagree that the animal kingdom took its revenge on Steve Irwin for years of abuse and exploitation. But at any rate one should cheer Greer for her lack of pieties.
Kinglsey Amis somewhere remarks (says Michael Dirda) that "If you can't annoy somebody, there's little point in writing."
Clapping is often an appropriate action -- like offering a hand to be shaken, or saying "How are you". And I don't mean appropriate as in polite, but appropriate as in dance step, as in next choreographed move.
More strongly: people are programmed to clap at certain moments -- when triggered, for instance, by certain types of rhetoric, certain set phrases or sentiments, certain degrees of utterance firmness, certain types of closure. (A question for another time: How do we know that a play is over and that we should demonstrate our appreciation?).
You can sort of see this clap-programming in the mob behaviour of talkshow and gameshow audiences -- but then again television is remarkably fake. Audiences really are told to applaud, cheer, sigh, and laugh -- this is not just a caricature. And not only will sequences be shot multiple times, so that what you're seeing needn't be spontaneous or natural, but before the show starts the crowd will be filmed delivering various types and levels of response.
Was invading Iraq immoral?
It was undesirable, sure. But you can't say that the eruption of Mt Vesuvius was immoral, or the Lisbon earthquake, or the Black Plague. And any government is a system, not a person -- with non-human as well as human components built in...
There are problems with treating any group as an "agent" or "rational", let alone as answerable to ethical obligations. At a recent conference, Jenann Ismael claimed that rationality requires more than working together -- beehives and mold aren't rational: -- there has to be, she suggested, a central unit that represents. And Philip Pettit mentioned that the choices a group makes by way of a voting process needn't be consistent with previous choices -- the unconstrained "group person", viewed over time, can act (and often does) in entirely unreasonable ways...
“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes Aww!” -- Jack Kerouac, On The Road
Notes
-- Friday 14 December 2007: "Blokes mag FHM has named the 68-year-old feminist as woman of the year... It was Greer’s outspoken nature that earned her the title. 'Steve Irwin’s death was ironic comedy? It was! Princess Di was little more than a media whore? She was! She’s like a brilliantly grumpy pop culture truth rod,' the magazine said of Greer’s better known recent remarks."
"Just because we can screw you, doesn't mean we will.
Let's give WorkChoices a go!"
-- The Age, 23/06/07, page 8.
***
People never essentially change -- or, at any rate, that's how we perceive them -- we actively look for similarities, and ignore the differences -- whatever John Smith had, he still has, no better, no worse -- and whatever you yourself had at 15, remains yours at 50, no better, no worse...
***
Dance like nobody's watching...
So Kubrick was infamous for his multiple takes. And I'm speculating here, but perhaps the reasons included: (a) perfectionism -- "That ashtray needs to be adjusted; let's re-shoot the scene"; and (b) exploration -- the sort of directing where you don't arrive on the set with preconceptions, and you don't dictate to the actors, but you maintain maximum openness to serendipity; and you push in different directions and see what happens.
Well, Nicole Kidman reports this additional reason: that repetition breaks down actors' self-consciousness. And I think anyone who's sat in an acting class or watched a rehearsal (or studied Meisner) will see how this could work.
-- And presumably the same goes for any other art... So in the case of writing, the first words you write are going to be mired in self-consciousness. But then you edit, and edit again, and draft and redraft, and suddenly you're solo dancing...
***
At O Week, the philosophy stall was next to Hillsong. And what a contrast. The former studious: the latter blaring music. The former purporting to be rational: the latter blatantly appealing to emotion. And note the difference in recruitment technique. One admitting it caters to a niche market. The other billing itself as "a social club; we organize barbecues and we hold beach parties once a week".
Nary a crucifix to be seen -- on either stall...
***
We're always locating ourselves in relation to things.
And we're always located, whether we want to be or not.
***
The gaze of the future collapses differences.
***
Physicalism is highly question-begging. The only things that exist are physical -- sure! But what counts as physical?
Mightn't you as well say, the only things that exist are the things that exist?
***
It's very hard to speak of an appropriate standard for revenge. For one thing, the way that damage is assessed, and the associated rituals of expiation, are culturally variant. But it should also be noticed that revenge is about the extra; it's in the nature of it to push boundaries. And if anything could be decided as appropriate (say we went to the polls and took a head count) -- well, we'd want to transcend the standard -- we're hard-wired to overpunish.
... just as it's very hard to decide on an appropriate standard for forgiveness...
***
Anything can also be presented as a tragedy -- or as comedy.
***
You can agree or disagree that the animal kingdom took its revenge on Steve Irwin for years of abuse and exploitation. But at any rate one should cheer Greer for her lack of pieties.
Kinglsey Amis somewhere remarks (says Michael Dirda) that "If you can't annoy somebody, there's little point in writing."
***
Clapping is often an appropriate action -- like offering a hand to be shaken, or saying "How are you". And I don't mean appropriate as in polite, but appropriate as in dance step, as in next choreographed move.
More strongly: people are programmed to clap at certain moments -- when triggered, for instance, by certain types of rhetoric, certain set phrases or sentiments, certain degrees of utterance firmness, certain types of closure. (A question for another time: How do we know that a play is over and that we should demonstrate our appreciation?).
You can sort of see this clap-programming in the mob behaviour of talkshow and gameshow audiences -- but then again television is remarkably fake. Audiences really are told to applaud, cheer, sigh, and laugh -- this is not just a caricature. And not only will sequences be shot multiple times, so that what you're seeing needn't be spontaneous or natural, but before the show starts the crowd will be filmed delivering various types and levels of response.
***
Was invading Iraq immoral?
It was undesirable, sure. But you can't say that the eruption of Mt Vesuvius was immoral, or the Lisbon earthquake, or the Black Plague. And any government is a system, not a person -- with non-human as well as human components built in...
There are problems with treating any group as an "agent" or "rational", let alone as answerable to ethical obligations. At a recent conference, Jenann Ismael claimed that rationality requires more than working together -- beehives and mold aren't rational: -- there has to be, she suggested, a central unit that represents. And Philip Pettit mentioned that the choices a group makes by way of a voting process needn't be consistent with previous choices -- the unconstrained "group person", viewed over time, can act (and often does) in entirely unreasonable ways...
***
“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes Aww!” -- Jack Kerouac, On The Road
***
Notes
-- Friday 14 December 2007: "Blokes mag FHM has named the 68-year-old feminist as woman of the year... It was Greer’s outspoken nature that earned her the title. 'Steve Irwin’s death was ironic comedy? It was! Princess Di was little more than a media whore? She was! She’s like a brilliantly grumpy pop culture truth rod,' the magazine said of Greer’s better known recent remarks."
| 40 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I did post earlier but my isp dropped dead at the crucial moment and I lost my better thoughts.
I have found a way of deprogramming clappers.
Perform like crap.
Works every time.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Perform like crap.
Works every time.
Exceptions would include:
-- celebrity actor in the cast
-- audience is full of geriatrics.